通用磨坊 (GIS) 2022 Q4 法說會逐字稿

Greetings, and welcome to the General Mills Fourth Quarter Fiscal 2022 Earnings Q&A Webcast. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded, Wednesday, June 29, 2022.

您好，歡迎收聽通用磨坊 2022 財年第四季度收益問答網絡直播。 （操作員說明）作為提醒，本次會議正在錄製，2022 年 6 月 29 日，星期三。

I would now like to turn the conference over to Jeff Siemon, VP of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

我現在想將會議轉交給投資者關係副總裁 Jeff Siemon。請繼續。

Thank you, Kelly, and good morning to everyone. We appreciate you joining us today for a Q&A session on our fourth quarter and full year fiscal '22 results. I hope everyone had time to review our press release, listen to our prepared remarks and view our presentation materials, which were made available this morning on our Investor Relations website.

謝謝你，凱利，大家早上好。感謝您今天加入我們，就我們的第四季度和 22 財年全年業績進行問答環節。我希望每個人都有時間查看我們的新聞稿，聽取我們準備好的評論並查看我們今天早上在我們的投資者關係網站上提供的演示材料。

Please note that in our Q&A session, we will make forward-looking statements that are based on management's current views and assumptions. Please refer to this morning's press release for factors that could impact forward-looking statements and for reconciliations of non-GAAP information, which may be discussed on today's call.

請注意，在我們的問答環節中，我們將根據管理層當前的觀點和假設做出前瞻性陳述。請參閱今天上午的新聞稿，了解可能影響前瞻性陳述的因素以及非 GAAP 信息的核對，這可能會在今天的電話會議上討論。

I'm here with Jeff Harmening, our Chairman and CEO; Kofi Bruce, our CFO; and Jon Nudi, Group President of our North America Retail segment.

我和我們的董事長兼首席執行官 Jeff Harmening 在一起；我們的首席財務官科菲布魯斯；和我們北美零售部門的集團總裁 Jon Nudi。

Let's go ahead and get right to the first question. So Kelly, can you please get us started?

讓我們繼續討論第一個問題。那麼凱利，你能不能讓我們開始？

(Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from Andrew Lazar with Barclays.

（操作員說明）我們的第一個問題來自 Barclays 的 Andrew Lazar。

I think you've talked about over the course of this year how the combination of HMM and pricing and other levers have actually been pretty effective at sort of protecting a lot of the -- at least the dollar cost of actual sort of inflation, but that supply chain costs and some other things, of course, have weighed on margins and profitability as well, like it has for the group as a whole.

我想你在今年的過程中已經談到了 HMM 和定價以及其他槓桿的結合實際上是如何非常有效地保護了很多——至少是實際通脹的美元成本，但是當然，供應鏈成本和其他一些因素也影響了利潤率和盈利能力，就像整個集團一樣。

I guess as you look forward to '23, I think you mentioned that you anticipate another sort of, call it, low double-digit benefit from pricing that you've taken already or is already in place. But of course, you still see another very significant 14% jump in inflation and slowly but surely, hopefully will continue to improve on the supply chain side.

我想當你期待 23 年的時候，我想你提到你預期另一種，稱之為，從你已經採取或已經到位的定價中獲得的低兩位數收益。但是，當然，您仍然會看到通貨膨脹率再次大幅上升 14%，而且緩慢但肯定地，希望供應鏈方面會繼續改善。

So I guess the question is, do you think that the combination of pricing and the HMM and the other levers that you've got would be enough in fiscal '23 to sort of better protect dollar profit, even including some of the supply chain issues and other things as opposed to just cost inflation? And then I just got a quick follow-up.

所以我想問題是，你認為定價和 HMM 以及你擁有的其他槓桿的組合是否足以在 23 財年更好地保護美元利潤，甚至包括一些供應鏈問題以及其他與成本通脹相對的事情？然後我得到了快速跟進。

Kofi, you want to take that one?

科菲，你想拿那個嗎？

Absolutely. Thank you, Andrew. So as we think about our approach to the next fiscal year, we're thinking about it much the same way. We're expecting only a modest decline in the level of supply chain disruption. We expect, as you mentioned, our price realization and a combination of HMM to largely offset the dollar cost of the 14% inflation that we've called. And our expectation is that the remainder of cost from disruption, we would work out over time to the extent that we see the environment stabilize. So the only big question remains when that happens. I think we're expecting another year of uncertainty candidly similar to the table that was set this year.

絕對地。謝謝你，安德魯。因此，當我們考慮下一個財政年度的方法時，我們的考慮方式大致相同。我們預計供應鏈中斷的程度只會小幅下降。正如您所提到的，我們預計我們的價格實現和 HMM 的組合將在很大程度上抵消我們所說的 14% 通貨膨脹的美元成本。我們的期望是，中斷產生的剩餘成本，隨著時間的推移，我們將在我們看到環境穩定的程度上進行計算。因此，當這種情況發生時，唯一的大問題仍然存在。我認為我們預計將迎來又一年的不確定性，這與今年設定的表格非常相似。

Okay. And then obviously, it's still very dynamic, and I know there have been plenty of discussions and a lot of debate, of course, around pricing and cost and everything else. But as you built your plans going into '23 and then discussed them with your key retail customers and things, I guess, are there things that have changed a little bit around going into your plans for fiscal '23 in terms of your retailer conversations versus, let's say, a year ago, meaning things around innovation or marketing plans, merchandising plans? I mean are you seeing customers start to think a little bit differently about those things as opposed to simply the pricing and inflation dynamic? Or am I being naive and we're just not there yet?

好的。然後很明顯，它仍然非常活躍，我知道已經有很多討論和爭論，當然，圍繞定價和成本以及其他一切。但是，當您制定進入 23 年的計劃，然後與您的主要零售客戶和事物進行討論時，我想，在您的 23 財年計劃中，您的零售商對話與，比方說，一年前，意思是圍繞創新或營銷計劃、銷售計劃？我的意思是，您是否看到客戶開始對這些事情有了一些不同的看法，而不僅僅是定價和通貨膨脹動態？還是我太天真了，我們只是還沒到那一步？

Jon, do you want to take that question?

喬恩，你想回答這個問題嗎？

Yes, absolutely. So it certainly is a dynamic environment. There's no doubt about that. And certainly, inflation and supply are 2 of the big topics that we spend a lot of time with retailers on. But I would say, Andrew, that things are pivoting back a bit more to growth from a marketing standpoint, from an innovation standpoint. So we're having those conversations as well. And also how do we provide value to consumers at a time that they need it as well. So we're talking about many things that were -- honestly, a year ago was really about supply that we were thinking in advance. So I think things are getting back to some of the conversations we've had in the past, and it's all about how do we properly grow our businesses together.

是的，一點沒錯。所以它肯定是一個動態的環境。毫無疑問。當然，通貨膨脹和供應是我們花大量時間與零售商討論的兩大主題。但我想說，安德魯，從營銷的角度來看，從創新的角度來看，事情正在更多地轉向增長。所以我們也在進行這些對話。還有我們如何在消費者需要的時候為他們提供價值。所以我們談論的很多事情——老實說，一年前真的是我們提前考慮的供應問題。所以我認為事情正在回到我們過去進行的一些對話，這一切都是關於我們如何正確地共同發展我們的業務。

Our next question comes from Bryan Spillane with Bank of America.

我們的下一個問題來自美國銀行的 Bryan Spillane。

I guess my question -- and maybe this is for you, Kofi. If we look at the guidance, the organic guidance, right, so the revenue range is 4% to 5%. And if you add back the impact of -- the net impact of the divestitures and acquisitions, the operating income range is 1% to 4%. So can you just kind of help us kind of think through what are the drivers that would cause you to be at the low end of that range, the OI range or the higher end of that OI range, again, assuming that 4% to 5% organic sales growth is the right number? Is it a reflection of commodity volatility? Or just like what are some of the pieces there that kind of describe or inform that wider range in OI?

我想我的問題——也許這是給你的，科菲。如果我們看一下指導，有機指導，對，所以收入範圍是 4% 到 5%。如果你加上剝離和收購的淨影響，營業收入範圍是 1% 到 4%。所以你能不能幫助我們思考一下是什麼驅動因素會導致你處於該範圍的低端、OI 範圍或該 OI 範圍的高端，再次假設 4% 到 5有機銷售增長百分比是正確的數字嗎？是商品波動的反映嗎？或者就像那裡有哪些文章描述或告知了 OI 中更廣泛的範圍？

Yes. No, I appreciate the question. And I think back to my earlier comments about sort of the backdrop for the operating environment, it still remains volatile with a high degree of uncertainty. I think we're expecting as a backdrop that the supply chain disruptions, to the extent they are foreseeable, will in the near term, not abate that much. So that is a factor that, even as we worked through this past year, was a headwind to margins and, even as we moved from quarter-to-quarter, provided some volatility to our expectations.

是的。不，我很欣賞這個問題。我回想起我之前關於運營環境背景的評論，它仍然不穩定，具有高度的不確定性。我認為，在可預見的範圍內，我們預計供應鏈中斷將在短期內不會減弱那麼多。因此，即使我們在過去一年中工作，這也是一個對利潤率構成不利影響的因素，即使我們從一個季度到另一個季度，也給我們的預期帶來了一些波動。

So the guidance range primarily reflects that. And then obviously, inflation is -- our best call based on the information we have in front of us, is 14%. But I would note that our expectations moved up even as we worked through the early part of this last fiscal year we just closed. So those are the 2 primary sources of volatility driving our expectations on the range.

所以指導範圍主要反映了這一點。然後很明顯，通貨膨脹是 - 根據我們面前的信息，我們最好的判斷是 14%。但我會注意到，即使我們在剛剛結束的上一個財政年度的早期工作，我們的期望也在上升。因此，這些是推動我們對該區間預期的兩個主要波動來源。

Bryan, I'd just add one additional piece on the inflation, is we are about 55% covered on our ingredients and packaging material requirements as we start the year. That's a bit higher than average, but that still leaves obviously some lack of coverage, especially in the back half of the year. So to Kofi's point about the uncertainty.

布賴恩，我只想在通貨膨脹上再加一點，在我們開始時，我們的成分和包裝材料要求覆蓋了大約 55%。這比平均水平略高，但仍然明顯缺乏覆蓋範圍，尤其是在今年下半年。所以對於科菲關於不確定性的觀點。

Okay. And anything in terms of -- I guess, you might -- you must know more about the first half of the year than the second half of the year. Just anything we should think about that in terms of phasing? Just in terms of the inflationary pressure, is it a little bit more front or back half loaded?

好的。任何關於 - 我想，你可能 - 你必須比下半年更了解上半年。在分階段方面我們應該考慮什麼？就通脹壓力而言，是前半載多一點還是後半載多一點？

Yes. So I think that's a great question and one worth just a little bit of comment. So as you think about the year, I would say we'd expect that the first half profit growth to be slightly weighted and favorable to the second half. A lot of that obviously is in part of the weight of the comparison on this Q4 that we just closed. But as you think about inflation, which you also referenced, we would expect that to be highest in Q1 and then decelerate as you work sequentially through the comps over the course of the year. And price/mix, we'll expect a partial impact in Q1 from recent actions and a full impact kind of in Q2.

是的。所以我認為這是一個很好的問題，值得一點評論。因此，當您考慮今年時，我會說我們預計上半年的利潤增長將略微加權並有利於下半年。其中很多顯然是我們剛剛結束的第四季度比較的一部分。但是，當您考慮您也提到的通貨膨脹時，我們預計第一季度通貨膨脹率最高，然後隨著您在一年中按順序工作而減速。和價格/組合，我們預計最近的行動會在第一季度產生部分影響，並在第二季度產生全面影響。

And then the other factor that I'd just call out that's worth mentioning is the impact of divestitures. The ones that we've announced and the ones that we've closed will be a bit higher than the first half before we begin to lap the yogurt and dough divestitures, which happened in the second half of this recent fiscal year.

然後我要指出的另一個值得一提的因素是資產剝離的影響。在我們開始剝離酸奶和麵團之前，我們宣布的和關閉的將比上半年略高，這發生在最近一個財政年度的下半年。

Our next question comes from Robert Moskow with Credit Suisse.

我們的下一個問題來自瑞士信貸的羅伯特莫斯科。

I guess a couple of questions. Kofi, I think in the middle of the year, you actually quantified the cost of supply chain disruptions, and then I don't know if you've quantified it since. Do you have a number for us? And when you talk about your pricing and HMM actions offsetting cost inflation, does it also offset that disruption estimate? Or is that a separate number? And then I have a quick follow-up.

我猜有幾個問題。 Kofi，我認為在年中，你實際上量化了供應鏈中斷的成本，然後我不知道你是否從那以後量化了它。你有我們的電話號碼嗎？當你談論你的定價和 HMM 行動抵消成本膨脹時，它是否也抵消了這種中斷估計？或者那是一個單獨的數字？然後我有一個快速跟進。

Yes. So we didn't provide a number. It's -- I think is in the range of 200. Previously, 250 is about where we'd half the mark here at the end of the year. And then I think back to my earlier comments, as we look at the full year, our adjusted gross margins are down. And if you kind of deconstruct that, the elements would drive you to inflation being about 500 basis point roughly drag, offset almost completely by price/mix and HMM. And that leaves the cost of the operating environment, the disruptions, the deleverage, other intermodal transfers, all the things that we're doing to accommodate supply in this environment as the driver of the margin decline.

是的。所以我們沒有提供數字。這是 - 我認為在 200 的範圍內。以前，250 大約是我們在年底時的一半。然後我回想起我之前的評論，當我們回顧全年時，我們調整後的毛利率下降了。如果你對它進行解構，這些因素會驅使你將通脹推向大約 500 個基點的大致拖累，幾乎完全被價格/組合和 HMM 抵消。這留下了運營環境的成本、中斷、去槓桿化、其他多式聯運轉移，以及我們在這種環境下為適應供應所做的所有事情，這些都是利潤率下降的驅動因素。

Okay. And I might just not be confident in finding things. But I'm having trouble finding the price/mix for North America retail in fourth quarter. I think I'm backing into something like 16% pricing. So...

好的。而且我可能只是沒有信心找到東西。但我很難找到第四季度北美零售的價格/組合。我想我正在支持 16% 的定價。所以...

You're close.

你很近。

Okay. So if your cost inflation...

好的。因此，如果您的成本膨脹...

15-plus percent is the number of organic price/mix.

15% 以上是有機價格/組合的數量。

So I guess here is the question. If your cost inflation for the year is only 14% but you're running pricing at 16%, isn't that a net positive?

所以我想這就是問題所在。如果您今年的成本通脹率僅為 14%，但您的定價為 16%，這不是淨利嗎？

Are you talking this fiscal year or next fiscal year?

你說的是本財年還是下財年？

Fiscal '23. So for fiscal '23, I think you're guiding to 14% inflation. Your pricing in your biggest segment of the market is up mid-teens. So I guess it seems like the pricing benefit is -- from a dollar standpoint is a net positive compared to your price inflation on a cost inflation on a dollar standpoint.

'23 財政年度。因此，對於 23 財年，我認為您正在指導 14% 的通脹率。您在最大市場中的定價上漲了十幾歲。所以我想定價的好處似乎是——從美元的角度來看，與你的價格通脹相比，從美元的角度來看，成本通脹是一個淨正數。

Yes. Rob, I think you've got -- I mean, you have to remember that we'll be starting to roll over some pricing as we come into fiscal '22 and certainly much more so as we get into the back half of the year as we have significant pricing come through in the back half of -- sorry, of fiscal '22, we'll be rolling over that in fiscal '23, my apologies.

是的。 Rob，我認為你已經 - 我的意思是，你必須記住，隨著我們進入 22 財年，我們將開始調整一些定價，當然隨著我們進入下半年由於我們在 22 財年的後半部分有重大定價，抱歉，我們將在 23 財年將其展期，我很抱歉。

And then I think the other piece that would be included in that would be the offset from volume and deleverage that comes through. We mentioned that we are expecting elasticities to be below historical levels but to increase somewhat as we go through '23.

然後我認為將包含在其中的另一部分是對成交量和去槓桿化的抵消。我們提到，我們預計彈性將低於歷史水平，但隨著我們 23 年的過去，彈性會有所增加。

Okay. That makes sense. And should I think about like for first quarter pricing, is it -- you're lapping only a 4% price/mix for North America, but you're taking more action. So are those 2 things kind of offsetting each other, do you think? Like you'd still be mid-teens in the first quarter?

好的。那講得通。我是否應該像第一季度的定價那樣考慮，是嗎？北美的價格/組合只有 4%，但你正在採取更多行動。那麼這兩件事是不是互相抵消了，你覺得呢？就像你在第一季度仍然是十幾歲？

Yes. Roughly. I think that's a fair assumption.

是的。大致。我認為這是一個公平的假設。

Our next question comes from Michael Lavery with Piper Sandler.

我們的下一個問題來自 Michael Lavery 和 Piper Sandler。

Just looking at the SNAP benefits that -- federal COVID emergency authorization is now set to run at least into October. And that, of course, supports the state emergency elevated levels of SNAP benefits that have been pretty significant. As you contemplate your top line guidance, what assumptions do you make around how that might unfold?

看看 SNAP 的好處——聯邦 COVID 緊急授權現在將至少運行到 10 月。當然，這支持州緊急狀態提高了相當重要的 SNAP 福利水平。當您考慮您的頂線指導時，您對如何展開做出了哪些假設？

I would start -- and I'll have Jon Nudi follow up on this. But I -- Michael, I would start with the -- our assumptions include people starting to eat from away from home more to a little bit at-home eating. And so I think as consumers become more concerned about the economic reality, the first thing they tend to do is eat more at home and less away from home, and we've seen restaurant traffic year-over-year the last couple of months has gone down a little bit and eating at home has gone up.

我會開始 - 我會讓 Jon Nudi 跟進這件事。但我——邁克爾，我會從——我們的假設開始，包括人們開始在外地吃東西，到在家吃東西。所以我認為隨著消費者越來越關注經濟現實，他們傾向於做的第一件事就是在家吃得更多，離家吃得更少，而且我們看到過去幾個月的餐廳客流量同比增長下降了一點，在家裡吃飯上升了。

And so as we think about our assumptions for the year -- and we saw this in the last recession, the Great Recession. We saw that consumption of away-from-home eating was down and replaced by at-home eating. We're seeing the same kind of behavior start now. So that's actually the first place I'd start.

因此，當我們考慮我們對這一年的假設時——我們在上一次經濟衰退中看到了這一點，即大衰退。我們看到，外出就餐的消費量下降了，取而代之的是在家就餐。我們現在開始看到同樣的行為。所以這實際上是我要開始的第一個地方。

And then -- and that's because consumers want to eat out more, but the cost of eating away from home is more than double the cost of eating at home. And then, of course, there's value-seeking behaviors once they get in the store, but consumers try to change their habits as little as possible and still be able to get what they want. And so that's how I would frame -- I mean, it's not an answer to the SNAP question, but before we go deep down that hole, I just wanted to start with kind of an overarching comment. And so Jon or Kofi, do you want to take over a little bit on the SNAP question?

然後 - 那是因為消費者想要更多地外出就餐，但離家就餐的成本是在家就餐成本的兩倍多。然後，當然，一旦他們進入商店，就會有追求價值的行為，但消費者試圖盡可能少地改變他們的習慣，仍然能夠得到他們想要的東西。這就是我的框架——我的意思是，這不是對 SNAP 問題的回答，但在我們深入那個洞之前，我只想從一個總體評論開始。那麼 Jon 或 Kofi，你想接手一點關於 SNAP 的問題嗎？

Yes. So thanks, Jeff. And I think you hit it exactly right. So SNAP is obviously one of the elements that will drive top line. And while SNAP is down versus pandemic highs, it's still above prepandemic periods. So we continue to monitor SNAP and it plays into things. But as Jeff mentioned, some bigger factors in play as well, including the shift to more in-home eating.

是的。所以謝謝，傑夫。而且我認為你完全正確地擊中了它。因此，SNAP 顯然是推動收入增長的要素之一。儘管 SNAP 相對於大流行的高點有所下降，但仍高於大流行前時期。因此，我們繼續監控 SNAP，它會發揮作用。但正如傑夫所說，還有一些更大的因素在起作用，包括轉向更多的家庭飲食。

And then even what's playing out in our categories. We've obviously watched very closely as well in terms of how branded players are performing, how private label is performing. And if you look back through history during economic downturns, we tend to perform pretty well and see our categories increase by 1 point or 2 in terms of volume performance. We've actually held our own from a share standpoint during those periods. We've seen the second and third tier brands lose share to private label. So it's a dynamic time. We're very close to our business and watching all the factors. But SNAP is just one of those.

然後甚至在我們的類別中正在發生的事情。我們顯然也非常密切地關注品牌球員的表現，自有品牌的表現。如果您回顧經濟低迷時期的歷史，我們往往表現良好，並且我們的類別在銷量表現方面增加了 1 或 2 個百分點。從股票的角度來看，在那些時期，我們實際上已經擁有了自己的股票。我們已經看到二三線品牌失去了自有品牌的份額。所以這是一個動態的時間。我們非常接近我們的業務並關注所有因素。但 SNAP 只是其中之一。

That's really helpful color. That's great. And just to follow up, I know you've called out the elasticities you expect to start at least getting closer to normal levels and factoring in some of that volume piece. On the pricing side, just especially with what the consumer is facing and some of the pushback maybe even from retailers, are you starting to feel like you're hitting a price ceiling in any categories? Or is it really still more of the same like it's been in this recent environment?

這顏色真的很有幫助。那太棒了。只是為了跟進，我知道你已經提到了你期望開始至少接近正常水平的彈性，並考慮到一些體積塊。在定價方面，尤其是考慮到消費者面臨的問題以及一些甚至可能來自零售商的抵制，您是否開始覺得您在任何類別中都達到了價格上限？或者它真的還是像在最近的環境中一樣嗎？

I would say, Mike, up until this point, we haven't really seen any change in elasticities. And I think the reason for that -- there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that consumers have switched to more at-home eating because it's more expensive. So the reason I started talking about, I would say, would be a big contributor to elasticities not having changed much even over the last month from what they were 2 or 3 or 4 months ago.

我想說，邁克，到目前為止，我們還沒有真正看到彈性的任何變化。我認為原因——有幾個原因。一是消費者已經轉向更多的在家吃飯，因為它更貴。因此，我會說，我開始談論的原因將是彈性的一個重要因素，即使在上個月與 2 個月或 3 個月或 4 個月前相比，彈性也沒有太大變化。

And the consumer is actually still in a -- they're still in a decent place. They're getting nervous. But when it comes to savings rates or the employment rate, I mean, consumers are still spending quite a bit of money. Now as they look ahead, they get nervous because they see inflation and so forth. But right now, the consumer is in a decent place. And any -- we haven't really seen any elasticity change, and I think that's because of the shift from away-from-home to at-home eating.

消費者實際上仍然處於 - 他們仍然處於一個體面的地方。他們開始緊張了。但是，當談到儲蓄率或就業率時，我的意思是，消費者仍在花費相當多的錢。現在，當他們展望未來時，他們會因為看到通貨膨脹等而感到緊張。但是現在，消費者處於一個不錯的位置。任何——我們還沒有真正看到任何彈性變化，我認為這是因為從離家到在家吃飯的轉變。

Next question comes from Cody Ross with UBS.

下一個問題來自瑞銀的 Cody Ross。

I just want to dig a little into pet here because the pet margin continues to slide further driven by inflation and supply chain disruptions that you called out. Did this catch you by surprise during the quarter? And when do you anticipate the rate of margin declines to moderate? And then I have a follow-up.

我只想在這裡深入研究一下寵物，因為寵物利潤率在您所說的通貨膨脹和供應鏈中斷的推動下繼續進一步下滑。這在本季度是否讓您感到意外？您預計利潤率何時會下降到溫和水平？然後我有一個跟進。

Yes, absolutely. Sorry. I just presumptively jumped in there. So thanks for the question. It's -- I just want to kind of set the frame by just acknowledging I think the pet business for us is still seeing a really strong demand, right? And we've grown the pet business double digits on both the top and the bottom line in the 4 years post acquisition.

是的，一點沒錯。對不起。我只是推測性地跳了進去。所以謝謝你的問題。這是 - 我只是想通過承認我認為我們的寵物業務仍然看到非常強勁的需求來設定框架，對嗎？在收購後的 4 年裡，我們的寵物業務收入和利潤都實現了兩位數的增長。

So this is more a function, as we look at the margins, specifically around 2 things, roughly in equal measure: the first, the impact of the acquisition that we completed early this year, this past fiscal year of the pet treats business, which is largely driven by some onetime costs and some modest margin dilution that comes with that business; and then second, the cost to serve, which were acutely higher in the quarter on the pet business. We've sought to service that business at levels to meet demand. We candidly were not able to produce to the demand we saw in the quarter and have had challenges and headwinds as we worked through the year.

所以這更像是一個功能，當我們查看利潤時，特別是大約兩件事，大致相同：第一，我們今年年初完成的收購的影響，上一財年的寵物零食業務，很大程度上是由該業務帶來的一些一次性成本和一些適度的利潤稀釋所驅動的；其次是服務成本，該季度寵物業務的成本大幅上升。我們已尋求在滿足需求的水平上為該業務提供服務。坦率地說，我們無法滿足我們在本季度看到的需求，並且在我們全年的工作中遇到了挑戰和逆風。

We're taking significant actions, to your question on kind of what we're doing about it, to debottleneck and continuing to add external supply capacity. In addition, we've put $150 million of capital spending, additional capital spending behind our dry dog food business, which is where we're seeing the most acute challenge on service to get additional capacity online in -- starting in F '24. So we would expect this -- the margin pressure to modestly improve as we take the near-term actions and then the real unlock to come as we get additional capacity, both external and internal, online.

我們正在採取重大行動，解決您關於我們正在做什麼的問題，以消除瓶頸並繼續增加外部供應能力。此外，我們已經投入了 1.5 億美元的資本支出，額外的資本支出用於我們的干狗糧業務，這是我們看到的最嚴峻的挑戰，即從 F '24 開始在線獲得額外容量的服務。因此，我們預計這一點 - 隨著我們採取近期行動，利潤率壓力將適度改善，然後隨著我們在線獲得額外的外部和內部容量，真正的解鎖將會到來。

Got you. And I just want to follow up a little bit about gross margin and some of the stranded costs you expect. So if you combine the low double-digit price/mix with the HMM savings, it looks like you should fully cover the inflation you're going to endure next year. You'll also be lapping the supply chain challenges in the second half next year. Is it fair to say right now that gross margin could actually increase next year? And if not, is that because of stranded costs? And if so, can you just kind of give us any color as how much stranded costs you expect?

得到你。我只想對毛利率和您預期的一些擱淺成本進行一些跟進。因此，如果您將兩位數的低價格/組合與 HMM 的節省結合起來，看起來您應該完全覆蓋您將在明年忍受的通貨膨脹。您還將在明年下半年應對供應鏈挑戰。現在可以公平地說明年毛利率實際上會增加嗎？如果不是，那是因為擱淺成本嗎？如果是這樣，您能否告訴我們您期望的擱淺成本有多少？

Cody, I think -- this is Jeff. You're -- I think you've got the right drivers. You're right that HMM plus our SRM pricing actions are intended to offset the inflation component. We did talk about a modest decline in disruptions. We will have an impact from divestitures and obviously, in particular, the Helper and Suddenly Salad divestiture. That's clearly a higher-margin business as we disclosed in the announcement of the deal. And so the divestiture of that business will have a negative mix impact on margin for the year.

科迪，我想——這是傑夫。你是——我認為你有合適的司機。您說得對，HMM 加上我們的 SRM 定價行動旨在抵消通脹成分。我們確實談到了中斷的適度下降。我們將受到資產剝離的影響，顯然，特別是 Helper 和突然沙拉資產剝離。正如我們在交易公告中披露的那樣，這顯然是一項利潤率更高的業務。因此，剝離該業務將對今年的利潤率產生負面影響。

Our next question comes from Pamela Kaufman with Morgan Stanley.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根士丹利的帕梅拉考夫曼。

In the prepared remarks, you highlighted that portfolio reshaping is going to be an ongoing aspect of the company's strategy. One of your key competitors is pursuing a more surgical approach to portfolio reshaping. What are your views on pursuing a similar strategy? And have you considered splitting up the company across higher and slower growth segments?

在準備好的評論中，您強調了投資組合重塑將是公司戰略的一個持續方面。您的一個主要競爭對手正在尋求一種更為外科手術的方法來重塑投資組合。您對採取類似策略有何看法？您是否考慮過將公司拆分為增長更高和更慢的細分市場？

Yes. Thanks for that question. What I love is that our strategy is working, and it has been working regardless of what competitors are doing. Our strategy has been working for the last 4 years as that inspire continued growth above our long-term algorithm and the fact we're share in the majority of our categories. And so I think actually, the worst thing that we could do is look at what somebody else is doing and try to emulate that when the strategy we have is working. And I say that because we're executing well on our core business as evidenced by the share gains over the last 4 years.

是的。謝謝你的問題。我喜歡的是我們的戰略正在發揮作用，而且無論競爭對手在做什麼，它一直在發揮作用。我們的戰略在過去 4 年一直在發揮作用，因為它激發了我們長期算法之上的持續增長，並且我們在大多數類別中都有所分享的事實。所以我認為實際上，我們能做的最糟糕的事情就是看看別人在做什麼，並在我們的策略奏效時嘗試效仿。我這麼說是因為我們在核心業務上執行良好，過去 4 年的份額增長證明了這一點。

But we've also integrated M&A quite well and whether that's seamlessly divesting the yogurt business or aggressively growing Blue Buffalo and the pet treat business. We feel great about that. The other thing I would say is it kind of goes -- people get lost and we talk -- there are a lot of dis-synergies or splitting things up and not only financial dis-synergies, but also capability of dis-synergies. And let me give you a couple of examples.

但我們也很好地整合了併購，無論是無縫剝離酸奶業務還是積極發展 Blue Buffalo 和寵物零食業務。我們對此感覺很好。我要說的另一件事是——人們迷路了，我們交談——有很多不協同效應或分裂，不僅是財務不協同效應，還有能力不協同效應。讓我舉幾個例子。

When we bought the Blue Buffalo business, one of the things we said was that the capabilities we have at General Mills are very similar to what is needed at Blue Buffalo. And one of those is extrusion technology, which is the technology we use in cereal. And we're one of the world leaders, if not the world's best, at extrusion technology. The same would be true for things like thermal processing, where the same technology that's used for wet pet food is used in things like soup and yogurt and other things.

當我們收購 Blue Buffalo 業務時，我們說過的其中一件事是，我們在 General Mills 擁有的能力與 Blue Buffalo 所需的能力非常相似。其中之一是擠壓技術，這是我們在穀物中使用的技術。在擠出技術方面，我們是世界領先者之一，即使不是世界上最好的。熱處理之類的事情也是如此，其中用於濕寵物食品的相同技術用於湯、酸奶和其他事物。

And so for a whole host of reasons, but ending with our strategy is working. Whatever our competitors do, their strategy may be the best for them, but we really like our strategy. We like the way it's working. And at the end of the day, it's creating quite a bit of value for shareholders.

因此，出於多種原因，但以我們的策略結束是有效的。無論我們的競爭對手做什麼，他們的策略可能對他們來說是最好的，但我們真的很喜歡我們的策略。我們喜歡它的工作方式。歸根結底，它為股東創造了相當多的價值。

Great. And also, you've discussed how you expect consumers to seek more value given the pressures that they're facing. In this environment, how are you thinking about managing price gaps versus private label and your branded competitors? It seems that your price gaps have widened pretty meaningfully versus private label and your categories. So what are your expectations around trade down? And how are you thinking about price gaps going forward?

偉大的。此外，您還討論了鑑於消費者面臨的壓力，您希望如何尋求更多價值。在這種環境下，您如何考慮管理與自有品牌和品牌競爭對手的價格差距？與自有品牌和您的類別相比，您的價格差距似乎已經大大擴大。那麼您對貿易下跌的期望是什麼？您如何看待未來的價格差距？

I'll let Jon Nudi answer the details. I would note that our pricing, it has been higher in the last few months, but at the same time, we're still growing share, which I think speaks to the strength of our brands. But Jon, you want to follow up?

我會讓 Jon Nudi 回答細節。我會注意到我們的定價在過去幾個月中一直在上漲，但與此同時，我們的份額仍在增長，我認為這說明了我們品牌的實力。但是喬恩，你想跟進嗎？

Yes, absolutely. And Jeff, you touched on this before, but it's not only looking at our categories but looking at broader consumption. So it starts with our consumers eating away at restaurants or eating at home, and we're seeing that shift to at home, which is important.

是的，一點沒錯。傑夫，你之前提到過這個，但它不僅著眼於我們的品類，而且著眼於更廣泛的消費。因此，從我們的消費者在餐館就餐或在家就餐開始，我們正在看到這種轉變，這很重要。

We've built an SRM capability over the last 5 or 6 years that we're really proud of. And it's much more sophisticated today than it was. We're able to monitor what's happening in the environment and then take targeted actions. And it might be list pricing. It might be promotional optimization.

在過去的 5 或 6 年裡，我們建立了 SRM 能力，這讓我們感到非常自豪。今天它比以前複雜得多。我們能夠監控環境中正在發生的事情，然後採取有針對性的行動。它可能是清單定價。可能是促銷優化。

So we're taking the actions we believe will enable us to win in the categories that we're competing in. And we are. If you look at the past year, we've grown share in the majority of our categories, not only North America retail, but really across the enterprise, leveraging this SRM capability. We take private label very seriously. I would call it retailer brands. We believe the best course is to make sure that we build our brands and we innovate.

因此，我們正在採取我們認為將使我們能夠在我們正在競爭的類別中獲勝的行動。而且我們是。如果您回顧過去的一年，我們在大多數類別中的份額都在增長，不僅是北美零售業，而且實際上是整個企業，利用了這種 SRM 功能。我們非常重視自有品牌。我稱之為零售商品牌。我們相信最好的辦法是確保我們建立自己的品牌並進行創新。

And over time, if you look at our performance, our categories actually hold up really well versus private label. In total food and beverage, private label has an 18% share, and our categories sits at 10%. And again, we believe that's because we build our brands and we innovate. We'll continue to do that as we move forward.

隨著時間的推移，如果你看看我們的表現，我們的類別實際上與自有品牌相比表現得非常好。在食品和飲料總量中，自有品牌佔有 18% 的份額，我們的品類占 10%。再一次，我們相信這是因為我們建立了自己的品牌並進行了創新。隨著我們前進，我們將繼續這樣做。

So we compete in North America Retail alone in over 25 categories. We're laser-focused on looking at what's happening from an inflation standpoint, how we're going to offset that from a pricing standpoint, how we're going to build our brands and how we're going to innovate. Again, we feel good about our plans for the coming year. We do believe that we're going to be able to scale effectively and grow share in a majority of our major categories again in fiscal '23.

因此，我們僅在北美零售業就在超過 25 個類別中展開競爭。我們專注於從通貨膨脹的角度來看正在發生的事情，我們將如何從定價的角度來抵消它，我們將如何建立我們的品牌以及我們將如何進行創新。再次，我們對來年的計劃感覺良好。我們確實相信，我們將能夠在 23 財年再次有效地擴大規模並在我們的大多數主要類別中增加份額。

Our next question comes from Chris Growe with Stifel.

我們的下一個問題來自 Chris Growe 和 Stifel。

Just had a question for you to be clear on kind of the phasing of pricing through the year. Is it -- so you have pricing actions that have already either been announced or -- and you have carryover pricing from this past year. So is it the second quarter when pricing plus your HMM cost savings would be sufficient to offset inflation? Is that the right way to think about that in the second quarter?

剛剛有一個問題要您明確說明全年定價的分階段。是不是 - 所以你有已經宣布的定價行動，或者 - 你有過去一年的結轉定價。那麼，在第二季度定價加上您的 HMM 成本節省就足以抵消通貨膨脹了嗎？這是在第二季度思考這個問題的正確方式嗎？

Yes. Roughly...

是的。大致...

Yes. Sorry, I jumped in again. So Chris, it's roughly right. I think that's a fair expectation given the inflation assumption for the year and the expected data.

是的。對不起，我又跳了。所以克里斯，大致是對的。考慮到當年的通脹假設和預期數據，我認為這是一個合理的預期。

Okay. And then I was curious, jumping over to the pet division. You're bringing on new co-packers. You won't have new capacity available, it sounds like, until fiscal '24. Do you believe you can meet demand in fiscal '23? Is it the addition of co-packers and perhaps some of the new capacity that's going to allow you to meet demand in fiscal '23 for that division?

好的。然後我很好奇，跳到寵物部門。你帶來了新的合作包裝工。聽起來，在 24 財年之前，你不會有新的產能可用。您相信您可以在 23 財年滿足需求嗎？是不是增加了聯合包裝商，也許還有一些新的產能可以讓你在 23 財年滿足該部門的需求？

I think it's fair to say in the near term, this will continue to be a headwind. We expect modest improvement to come in the near term primarily from bottlenecking and enrollment, continued enrollment of additional external supply chain capacity. But I wouldn't expect it to be fully enough to satisfy the demand we're seeing on the business in the near term.

我認為在短期內可以公平地說，這將繼續成為逆風。我們預計短期內將出現適度改善，主要來自瓶頸和入學率，以及額外外部供應鏈能力的持續入學率。但我不認為它足以滿足我們在短期內看到的業務需求。

Our next question comes from Ken Goldman with JPMorgan.

我們的下一個問題來自摩根大通的 Ken Goldman。

It's Tom Palmer on for Ken. I wanted to ask on elasticity. So guidance assumes elasticity increases but remains below historic levels. I just want to make sure I understand this. Are you assuming elasticity returns to more normal levels at some point over the year or that some degree of below-average elasticity persists throughout the year? And why you have that view? And what do you consider to be normal elasticity?

是湯姆·帕默（Tom Palmer）為肯。我想問彈性。因此，指導假設彈性增加但仍低於歷史水平。我只是想確保我理解這一點。您是假設彈性在一年中的某個時間點恢復到更正常的水平，還是全年持續某種程度的低於平均水平的彈性？為什麼你有這種看法？你認為什麼是正常彈性？

So do you want to take that, Kofi?

所以你想接受那個嗎，科菲？

Yes. This is Kofi. So I think the fair assumption is for the full year, our guidance is predicated on elasticities being higher than this past year, where, as a reminder, they were significantly below what our historical modeling would tell us. We are not expecting for the balance of the year a full -- a return to the full levels of elasticity that the historical models would indicate.

是的。這是科菲。所以我認為公平的假設是全年，我們的指導是基於彈性高於去年，作為提醒，它們遠低於我們的歷史模型告訴我們的。我們預計今年餘下時間不會完全恢復——恢復到歷史模型所顯示的全部彈性水平。

Structurally, there are a number of reasons for this, and Jeff referenced a lot of them around the at-home dynamics, the consumption patterns that we expect to see from consumers being a primary driver as a backdrop. And then I think it's hard to drive by the continued challenge around supply chain disruption as you think about that as a backdrop for choice and selection for consumers.

從結構上講，這有很多原因，傑夫在家庭動態方面引用了很多原因，我們期望從消費者那裡看到的消費模式是主要驅動力作為背景。然後我認為圍繞供應鏈中斷的持續挑戰很難推動，因為你認為這是消費者選擇和選擇的背景。

And then lastly, when you think about the broader inflationary pressures and the value trade-offs that the consumers make, it's important to note that inflation is hitting away-from-home food more heavily and even at-home food. So I think all of those things go forward our assumption.

最後，當你考慮到更廣泛的通脹壓力和消費者做出的價值權衡時，重要的是要注意通脹對非家庭食品甚至家庭食品的影響更大。所以我認為所有這些事情都符合我們的假設。

Okay. And then just on shipment timing, I think a quarter ago, you talked about how some of that undershipment in North America would likely be a fiscal '23 event. At least looking at Nielsen, seems to be a bit of timing benefit in the fourth quarter. Is there more to come as we think about 2023?

好的。然後就出貨時間而言，我想一個季度前，你談到北美的一些出貨不足可能會成為 23 財年的事件。至少看尼爾森，第四季度似乎有點時機優勢。當我們想到 2023 年時，還會有更多事情發生嗎？

Jon, do you want to take that?

喬恩，你想拿那個嗎？

Yes, absolutely. We actually don't believe there is any benefit in the quarter. We think nonmeasured channels is really the difference versus what you see in deals and in movement versus RNS. So we don't believe that we either built inventory or replenished it at our customers.

是的，一點沒錯。我們實際上不認為本季度有任何好處。我們認為，非測量渠道與您在交易中看到的不同，在流動中與 RNS 不同。因此，我們認為我們既沒有建立庫存，也沒有為客戶補充庫存。

So as we move through the first half of fiscal '23, we expect some of the same service issue that we experience through fiscal '22 to still be with us. So as a result, we're not baking in any real benefit from rebuilding inventories.

因此，當我們度過 23 財年的上半年時，我們預計我們在 22 財年遇到的一些相同的服務問題仍然存在。因此，我們並沒有從重建庫存中獲得任何真正的好處。

Our next question comes from Steve Powers with Deutsche Bank.

我們的下一個問題來自德意志銀行的 Steve Powers。

Just a relatively quick follow-up on pet, if I could. I think the discussion has been pretty full. But I guess the growth rate, as realized in the quarter, was still quite substantial despite the supply constraints. So I guess is there -- can you give us some color on what that implies about what you're seeing in all channel consumption, number one? You said you're not delivering to that demand. How are you thinking about channel inventory levels? Any risks that we should be -- that you're monitoring or we should be aware of around fulfillment rates or out-of-stocks? I guess I'm looking at the current situation as a potential opportunity as you catch up, but I'm also just trying to level set on the interim risk.

如果可以的話，只是對寵物的相對快速的跟進。我認為討論已經很充分了。但我猜，儘管供應受限，但本季度實現的增長率仍然相當可觀。所以我想是的——你能給我們一些關於你在所有渠道消費中看到的暗示的顏色嗎，第一？你說你沒有滿足這種需求。您如何看待渠道庫存水平？我們應該存在的任何風險——您正在監控，或者我們應該注意關於履行率或缺貨的風險？我想我正在將當前情況視為您趕上的潛在機會，但我也只是試圖平衡臨時風險。

Yes. Well, let me frame it primarily through to the lens of what we saw for service and as we look at the fourth quarter on this business. Our service levels came in at the high end of 60%, low end of 70%. So I think the opportunity as we go forward is to be running probably closer to 80%. But we see strong demand across all the channels as we look forward.

是的。好吧，讓我主要從我們所看到的服務和第四季度來看這項業務的鏡頭來構建它。我們的服務水平處於 60% 的高端，70% 的低端。所以我認為我們前進的機會可能是接近 80%。但在我們期待的過程中，我們看到所有渠道的強勁需求。

So this is not a demand issue. It is ultimately going to be -- even modest improvements in supply will allow us to unlock additional growth. And the other factors I think you listed around retailer inventories are less a challenge and a consideration as we look ahead.

所以這不是需求問題。最終將是——即使供應的適度改善也將使我們能夠釋放額外的增長。在我們展望未來時，我認為您列出的圍繞零售商庫存的其他因素不是挑戰和考慮因素。

And I would say in terms of risk, I'm not sure there's risk beyond what we've already identified in our guidance. I mean the demand is clearly there, and we've accounted for the fact that in the very near term, we're not going to catch up fully to demand, but this is not beyond the way of what we know how to do. I mean this is really about debottlenecking capacity and using external sources and then building more capacity.

我想說的是，就風險而言，我不確定是否存在超出我們在指導中已經確定的風險。我的意思是需求明顯存在，我們已經考慮到這樣一個事實，即在短期內，我們不會完全趕上需求，但這並沒有超出我們所知道的範圍。我的意思是，這實際上是關於消除能力瓶頸並使用外部資源，然後建立更多的能力。

And so as you indicated, we also have to remember, we did grow, I think, 20% in the fourth quarter. So we feel great about our pet business, and we just have to make sure that we get our capacity back particularly in dry dog food, and we're in the process of doing that.

正如你所說，我們還必須記住，我們確實在第四季度增長了 20%。所以我們對我們的寵物業務感覺很好，我們只需要確保我們恢復我們的能力，特別是在幹狗糧方面，我們正在這樣做。

And our final question comes from David Palmer with Evercore ISI.

我們的最後一個問題來自 Evercore ISI 的 David Palmer。

Just following up on the gross margin question. So far, gross margin in fiscal '22 was 33%, I think, and gross margin in pre-COVID fiscal '19, mid-34s. I wonder what the net impact to that gross margin has been from M&A over that time. Basically, I'm wondering how much lower gross margins were versus pre-COVID on a comparable basis and how that compares to that 200 basis points plus of supply chain friction you mentioned.

只是跟進毛利率問題。到目前為止，我認為 22 財年的毛利率為 33%，而 COVID 之前的 19 財年的毛利率為 34 年代中期。我想知道在那段時間併購對毛利率的淨影響是什麼。基本上，我想知道毛利率在可比基礎上與 COVID 之前相比降低了多少，以及與你提到的 200 個基點加上供應鏈摩擦相比如何。

Yes. I think I can give it to you in the perspective of the friction from other supply chain costs being the primary driver of the drag as you look from beginning of that period to -- through the most recent quarter. I think I would note that some of the biggest divestitures we've made over that period also had probably some margin dilution already embedded in our P&L. So to the extent that we are -- the most recent divestiture obviously had attractive margins, but the net of all of those is probably a small [props] to neutral from a margin mix perspective.

是的。我想我可以從其他供應鏈成本的摩擦作為拖累的主要驅動因素的角度來告訴你，從那個時期開始到最近一個季度。我想我會注意到，我們在此期間進行的一些最大的資產剝離也可能已經在我們的損益表中嵌入了一些利潤稀釋。因此，就我們而言——最近的資產剝離顯然具有誘人的利潤率，但從利潤率組合的角度來看，所有這些資產的淨值可能是一個很小的 [props] 到中性。

So basically, the decline -- to put a finer point out, the decline versus pre-COVID is really all supply chain disruptions.

因此，基本上，下降——更確切地說，與 COVID 之前相比，下降實際上是所有供應鏈中斷。

Yes, that makes sense. Any thought on the ability to reclaim that margin? Is there anything aside from the timing of pricing actions versus inflation that makes you think you can't get back to a business-adjusted pre-COVID gross margin level?

是的，這是有道理的。對收回該保證金的能力有任何想法嗎？除了定價行動的時機與通貨膨脹之外，還有什麼讓您認為您無法恢復到經業務調整的 COVID 前毛利率水平？

Yes. No, look, I think the main thing I would start with is a recognition that the supply chain environment is stabilizing. And once that begins to stabilize, we will be able to apply our peer-leading HMM capability to get at these costs. Some of these costs will fall fully naturally with the environment and the stabilization of supply chain. Some of them will require just some focused HMM work, and all within our capacity to deliver. If you look at our historical ability to drive HMM, pre-COVID levels have been in the 4% to 5% range. So I think this is comfortably in the zone of what we can manage. What's not notable right now, obviously, is exactly when we'll see the supply chain environment stabilize. But that is the way we're managing the business.

是的。不，看，我認為我首先要認識到供應鏈環境正在穩定。一旦這種情況開始穩定下來，我們將能夠運用我們同行領先的 HMM 能力來降低這些成本。其中一些成本將隨著環境和供應鏈的穩定而完全自然下降。其中一些只需要一些專注的 HMM 工作，而且都在我們的能力範圍內。如果您查看我們推動 HMM 的歷史能力，COVID 之前的水平一直在 4% 到 5% 的範圍內。所以我認為這在我們可以管理的範圍內很舒服。顯然，目前不值得注意的是我們將看到供應鏈環境何時穩定下來。但這就是我們管理業務的方式。

And I just had one last one. Your media advertising, you said in the presentation, it's going to go up by more than the 5% CAGR that you've had over the COVID era. And so that would be -- I guess, would get you 20% above pre-COVID levels in media spend. This is sort of a fundamental change that you started from before -- just before pre-COVID where you're, I guess, getting bigger in digital. And I think it's worth sort of addressing how different this has been for you, how you're spending on this, but also why you'd feel confident that this is getting an ROI in a way that would make you different than you were in the 3 years before COVID.

我只吃了最後一個。您在演示文稿中說，您的媒體廣告的增長速度將超過 COVID 時代 5% 的複合年增長率。所以這將是——我想，會讓你的媒體支出比疫情前水平高出 20%。這是您從以前開始的一種根本性變化-我猜，就在COVID之前，您在數字領域變得越來越大。而且我認為值得一提的是，這對你來說有多麼不同，你是如何花在這上面的，還有為什麼你會相信這會以一種讓你與以前不同的方式獲得投資回報率COVID 之前的 3 年。

Maybe I'll -- let me clarify one point...

也許我會——讓我澄清一點……

Jon, you want to clarify that a little bit?

喬恩，你想澄清一下嗎？

Yes. Let me clarify one point, and then maybe I can shift it back to Jon or Jeff. Dave, in the presentation, we talked about the fact that we expect media to be up in fiscal '23, but there wasn't a relation to the growth rate. That was just in terms of dollars. So we've grown at a 5% compound growth rate in the last 3 years. We expect media to be up in fiscal '23, but that wasn't a rate guidance. So in terms of where we're spending or how we feel about it, maybe I'll pass it over to Jon or Jeff.

是的。讓我澄清一點，然後也許我可以將其轉回給 Jon 或 Jeff。戴夫，在演講中，我們談到了我們預計媒體將在 23 財年增長的事實，但與增長率無關。那隻是以美元計。因此，我們在過去 3 年中以 5% 的複合增長率增長。我們預計媒體將在 23 財年上漲，但這不是利率指導。所以就我們在哪裡消費或者我們對它的感受而言，也許我會把它交給喬恩或傑夫。

Yes. I would just say we feel great about our media and the granularity we have and understanding the return or ability to optimize. So north of 50% of all our media spend is digital now, and amongst that digital spend, more than 50% is performance marketing. And that's where we're [leveraging] our (inaudible), which we've invested to acquire, partner with the retailers and their data, which is really powerful and becoming really targeted, building one-to-one personalized relationships.

是的。我只想說我們對我們的媒體和我們擁有的粒度以及對回報或優化能力的理解感覺很好。因此，現在我們所有媒體支出的 50% 以北是數字化的，在這些數字化支出中，超過 50% 是績效營銷。這就是我們[利用]我們的（聽不清）的地方，我們已經投資收購，與零售商及其數據合作，這些數據非常強大並且變得非常有針對性，建立一對一的個性化關係。

And then testing and iterating at scale. We can take 200 different ads online and optimize and really have the -- focus on the one that have the best return. And that's seeing significant increases in return for us. So we believe we're getting more than -- more return from our advertising than ever before. We're able to optimize the days of shooting an ad and hoping it works for a year or over. We're literally optimizing ads on a daily basis. That's really good for our brands because it helps build them and helps refine the messages, and it builds more loyalty for us as well. So we feel great about media, and we're continuing to invest heavily to make sure we have the digital capabilities needed in the future.

然後進行大規模測試和迭代。我們可以在線投放 200 種不同的廣告並進行優化，並真正專注於具有最佳回報的廣告。這讓我們的回報顯著增加。因此，我們相信我們從廣告中獲得的回報比以往任何時候都多。我們能夠優化拍攝廣告的時間，並希望它可以工作一年或更長時間。我們每天都在優化廣告。這對我們的品牌非常有利，因為它有助於建立品牌並幫助改進信息，並且也為我們建立了更多的忠誠度。所以我們對媒體感覺很好，我們將繼續大力投資，以確保我們擁有未來所需的數字能力。

Jeff, you can close out here.

傑夫，你可以在這里關閉。

Pardon me, it seems Mr. Harmening's line did disconnect, unfortunately. So Mr. Siemon, you're good to close the call, if you'd like.

對不起，哈梅寧先生的電話好像斷線了，很不幸。西蒙先生，如果您願意，可以掛斷電話。

No worries. Thanks, Kelly. We just appreciate everyone's continued engagement and interest in General Mills. Certainly, the IR team will be available today for follow-ups, but we wish you all a good continued summer, and look forward to catching up soon. Thanks so much.

不用擔心。謝謝，凱利。我們非常感謝大家對通用磨坊的持續參與和興趣。當然，IR 團隊將在今天進行後續跟進，但我們希望大家度過一個愉快的暑假，並期待盡快趕上。非常感謝。

That does conclude the conference call for today. We thank you for your participation, and we ask that you please disconnect your lines.

這確實結束了今天的電話會議。我們感謝您的參與，並請您斷開線路。